top of page

A Study on the KJV (Part 3) - "Errors"

There is a monumental difference between the sincere seeker of truth asking a question and desiring an honest answer and the prideful critic who asks the question, not to get an answer, but rather to display his contempt for the subject. Last night in our study on the King James Version at our home church I addressed various questions that have been posed on the Bible issue in hopes of giving a satisfactory answer for those who earnestly desire one.

Questions about the King James Version

1. In order to shake a believer’s faith in God’s preserved words to English speaking people found in the KJV, the critic will ask something like this, “Which revision of the KJV do you believe is infallible? The KJV has been revised 4 to 6 times since 1611, resulting in 20,000 changes between then and now. So which one is infallible? Was it the KJV from 1611 or 1629 or 1638 or 1762 or 1769?

The current edition of the KJV is, as far as the text is concerned, identical to the original edition submitted for printing. In a report given to the American Bible Society in 1852 a researcher states: “The English Bible as left by the translators has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text. With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bible remains unchanged and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators.”

The reason for the different editions of the King James Version is three-fold: changes in typeset, changes in spelling, and typographical errors.

Typeset Changes: The first edition of the Authorized Version in 1611 used Gothic typestyle. Gothic letters are formed to resemble handwritten manuscripts, they look quite different than the Roman letters which are in common use today. The printers used the Gothic typestyle because they considered it to be more majestic and beautiful than the others, but it is somewhat harder for people to read who are not used to it. For example, the Gothic “s” looks like the Roman “f” when it is used as a lower case “s” at the beginning or middle of a word (“also” becomes “alfo” and “set” becomes “fet”). In 1612 an edition of the KJV was printed in Roman typestyle because it is easier for people to read. A change in type style no more alters the text of the Bible than a change in font size does. The change in type style alone accounts for thousands of changes between the 1611 edition and later ones.

Spelling Changes: Spelling changes account for nearly all the remaining differences between the editions. Most historians date the beginning of modern English to around 1500. By 1611, the grammatical structure and basic vocabulary of present-day English had long been established but the spelling did not stabilize at the same time. Not until the 18th century did the spelling begin to take a stable form. Prior to this, additional e’s were often found at the end of words and double vowels were much more common. None of the spelling changes alter the text in any way.

Textual changes: The final category deals with 400 or so changes made between the 1611 edition and today that do affect the text – everyone one of them was because of a typographical error due to the printing conditions. The printing conditions in 1611 were slow and difficult. All type was set by hand, one piece at a time; printing errors were an expected part of any completed book. In the first printing, words were sometimes inverted, sometimes a plural was written as a singular or vise versa. At times a word was miswritten for one that was similar. A few times a word or even a phrase was omitted. Most of the typographical errors that were in the 1611 edition were corrected in the 1613 edition, but the 1613 edition introduced even others. In 1629, another edition was released that corrected these. Two of the original translators (Samuel Ward and John Bois) took part in making these corrections, and who would know the intent of the translators more than two of the translators themselves? However, a few more typos were made in this printing, and the 1638 edition removed these. By this time nearly 75% of the 400 textual variations had been corrected, the rest were picked up later. By 1769 whatever slight textual errors that were inserted in the printing process were removed and the text was finally free from any man made error.

The KJV has never been revised; the various editions were to correct previous printing errors – not one edition was to “revise” the words. The intent of these editions (apart from spelling and punctuation updating) was to restore the original text given by the translators to the printers in 1611. Scholars use this myth of past revisions to justify their own tampering with the text. God did not see fit to leave us the proof copy of the translation given to the printers in 1611 – our authority is in God’s ability to preserve His words.

2. Doesn't the KJV contains many archaic words which need to be updated?

Much of the archaic word criticism is directed against the personal pronouns “thee,” “thou,” “ye”. These supposedly archaic forms enable the reader to distinguish between the second person singular (“thee”) and the second person plural (“you”). In our KJV, “thee, “thou,” “thy,” and “thine” are always singular whereas “you,” “ye,” and “your” are always plural. We make no distinction among second person singular and plural pronouns in English today.

The retention of “thee,” “thou,” and “ye” therefore make the KJV text clearer. For instance, Luke 22:31-32 in the KJV reads, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” We see that Satan desired to have all the disciples but Christ prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren. The NIV needed to add a marginal note to clarify this distinction: “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you[a] as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon…” [a] The Greek is plural.

Modern versions not only change supposedly “archaic” words but also the text behind the words, weakening many essential truths. The meaning of a difficult word is often defined within its context or by comparing it with other scripture. A good dictionary is also a means of learning the definition of words no longer in common use today.

3. The KJV was written in Old English which needs updating to modern English

Many critics like to assert that the English of the KJV is “Old” English in order to be misleading about its readability. The Authorized Version (KJV) was printed in Gothic type face in 1611; this typeset is sometimes referred to as Old English but actual Old English in terms of a language is something very different than the modern English of the KJV and today.

Old English was spoken from 449 AD to around 1100 AD. When the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes invaded England (449 AD) they brought with them their own individual languages. Old English looked nothing like the English of today and could not be read, spoken, or understood by someone who speaks Modern English. An example of Old English from Beowulf is, “egsode eorl. Syððan ærest wearð.”

Middle English was predominant from around 1100 AD to 1450 AD. It began to develop in 1066 AD when the Norman’s invaded England. Middle English would not be readily understood by those who speak Modern English. An example of Middle English from Canterbury Tales is, “Þe droghte of Marche haþ perced to the rote.”

Modern English came into existence around 1450 AD and was basically solidified by the end of the 16th century. Around 1500 AD major changes in vocal pronunciation, inflection, and spelling simplified and helped solidify the language. The English language used in the KJV was not only the common language of that day, but it was also the English language in its purest form.

The Historian John Richard Green commented, “As a mere literary monument, the English version of the Bible remains the noblest example of the English tongue. Its perpetual use made it from the instant of its appearance the standard of our language. But for the moment its literary effect was less than its social. The power of the book over the mass of Englishmen showed itself in a thousand superficial ways, and in none more conspicuously than in the influence it exerted on ordinary speech… the mass of picturesque allusion and illustration which we borrow from a thousand books, our fathers were forced to borrow from one.”

The English language has degenerated from what it was in 1611 to what it is today.

4. The KJV is hard to understand and therefore we need modern versions

Understanding the Bible depends a lot on the attitude with which you approach it. In the 4th century Chrysostom rebuked this “hard to understand” attitude of people in his day when he said, “But still you will say, ‘I cannot understand it!’ What marvel? How shouldest thou understand it, if thou will not read nor look upon it?” There is enough on the “bottom shelf” of the Bible to “feed” a young child in the faith. The simple fact is, the more you prayerfully read the Bible, the more you will understand of it.

The Flesch-Kincaid Research Company carried out a survey on the readability of various Bible versions. The formula they used to calculate readability included the average number of words per sentence, average number of syllables per word, etc. They KJV was found to be at a 5th grade reading level whereas the NIV was considered an 8th grade reading level.

Modern versions often exchange hard words for easier words. For instance, “pugnacious” (NASB) for “striker” (KJV), “fomenting” (NIV) for “speaking” (KJV), and “verdant” (NKJV) for “fat” (KJV). Even critics of the KJV acknowledge it to be the easiest to memorize.

5. The KJV is a translation and translations are made by imperfect men. Therefore the KJV must be imperfect.

This criticism overlooks the fact that the originals were written by imperfect men: Moses was a murderer, David committed adultery, and Peter curse, swore, and denied Christ.

If a translation is imperfect then what of the originals? When Joseph was a ruler in Egypt he spoke to his brethren in Egyptian but Moses wrote the account in Hebrew. Did God inspire Joseph’s Egyptian statements (the originals) or the Egyptian interpreter’s verbal translation or Moses’ written translation as found in the Hebrew of Genesis chapter 42? Paul’s statements in Acts 22 were given orally in Hebrew but written down in Greek by Luke.

God has promised to preserve the words which He gave by inspiration. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” – the word “scripture” by its very root (“script”) is a term for written words – therefore translations are inspired words of God.

To say that a translation cannot be “word perfect” to the original language is to invent a problem where no problem exists. God can give His words to anyone in any language exactly the way He wants them to have them without the words being identical to the original language. The word of God does not lose its purity and authority by being translated. God can easily direct or influence translators to choose words that say what He wants said in any language.

6. The KJV can be tolerated but surely any translation is satisfactory so long as it contains the fundamentals of the faith and we win souls.

Which would be more satisfying… ordering a nice meal from a restaurant or rooting around in the dumpster to find the scraps? Modern Bible versions certainly contain portions of God’s word but there is a lot of garbage surrounding it.

Any correctly translated scripture, in any version, would be correctly called the inspired word of God, if it is from uncorrupted texts. Many verses in the corrupt Greek Vaticanus are exactly the same as in the Textus Receptus; they are truly God’s word. We cannot condemn a verse merely on the basis of the book or manuscript in which it is found – the issue is whether the verse is correct. It is those places where scripture has been changed which are to be rejected. John 1:1 reads exactly the same in the King James and The New American Standard Bible but just a few verses later the NASB has Jesus Christ appear to be a created god (“begotten God”), just like the reading in the Jehovah’s Witness corrupt bible. This is unacceptable.

The KJV will always give much greater emphasis on the fundamentals and present them more forcefully than the modern versions that are filled with corruptions. For instance, 1 John 5:7 says in the KJV, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” In one verse, the very nature of God as a triune being is disclosed clearly. The modern “swords” (Heb. 4:12) are rusty and dull and have removed this witness from scripture.

If you read an NIV and get saved, that does not mean that the NIV is correct when it claims that Elhanan killed Goliath (2 Sam. 21:19), neither does it justify attacks on Christ’s deity, salvation by grace, the removal of the word “hell,” etc.

7. Where was the Bible before 1611?

Before 1611 the scriptures were to be found in the available Antioch line of manuscripts including the numerous translations over the centuries. This would include: copies of Koine Greek from the Antoich family of texts (Received Text or Textus Receptus), the Old Gallic, Old Latin, Syrian Peshitta, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, etc.

But can we name specifically where the Bible was before 1611? It will greatly enlighten your mind to ask the critic this same question in return. They don’t know where exactly it was before 1611 either, or more importantly, where it is now. A very good educated guess would be that God preserved His perfect words in the Old Latin Bibles (not Jerome’s Vulgate) and then in the Waldensian Latinized Bibles till the time of the Reformation. Waldensians were killed off by the thousands and their Bibles were burned by their Catholic persecutors.

The fact that we may not know where God’s preserved word was in say 950 AD has no bearing on us today – neither does it negate the promises of God to preserve His word. Where was the written word of God in 2 Kings chapter 22? It was hidden during the years of Judah’s rebellion and idolatry so the good king Josiah could find it and bring about reforms in the land. Israel didn’t know where it was for a period of time before chapter 22, but God did! Where was the written word of God during the period of the Acts of the Apostles? The mighty movements of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the word of God in the book of Acts were accomplished before the 27 books of the New Testament were even completed. Where was the written word of God in 90 AD? The 27 books of the New Testament weren’t even finished yet. Although the individual books of the New Testament were recognized as scripture in the first century they were not collected in one volume as we have them today. Peter refers to Paul’s writings as scripture and yet there is no record of all of his epistles being bound in one book like we have in our New Testament. To whom much is given much shall be required – we have the 66 books of the Bible today, what are we doing with them?

The same God that knows the number of the hairs on your head, knew where every jot and tittle of His word was and He promised to guide believers into all truth. If a critic accuses you, as a Bible-believer, of not being able to back up your position with historical evidence that is 100% verifiable, then doesn’t this same argument completely destroy the position of those who are “originals-only” advocates?

The new version promoter and King James critic have no final authority but their own mind or their favorite scholar to tell them what God probably said. They have no infallible Bible and they don’t want you to have one either. They can’t tell you where you can get a copy of God’s pure words today, let alone where they were before 1611. “Thus saith the LORD” has been replaced with “Well, how does this version render it?”

8. Was Luther’s German translation or earlier English translations (like Tyndale’s) the inerrant word of God?

No, but the Lord can use a Bible that is not perfectly preserved. The English speaking people did have the “word of God” in part prior to 1611 but they did not have God’s infallible preserved word to the English speaking people. Actually, they had more of the word of God than people reading modern translations today because the early English Bibles were based largely on the Textus Receptus.

The translations prior to 1611 gave more light than nothing at all. Whether it is Luther’s German or Tyndale or the Geneva Bible, they are examples of versions which in a sweetly natural way, witnessed to by the Spirit of God, worked their way into the hearts of millions of God’s people. This cannot be said in the case of the corrupt manuscripts that produced Constantine’s Bible or the Latin Vulgate or the modern versions that rely on high pressure marketing and promotions.

The history of the English Bible is one of blood and purification. The King James Version was the seventh major English translation that began with Wycliff’s Bible in 1382. The importance of Wycliff’s Bible lies in the fact that it was the first English Bible even though Wycliff translated it from the corrupt Latin Vulgate. Coverdale’s Bible (1535) was an improvement because he used Tyndale’s New Testament translation from the Received Text as well as Tyndale’s Pentateuch translated from Hebrew. The Geneva Bible was a big improvement over previous English Bibles because of its underlying texts used for translation plus it was translated by a small committee rather than an individual effort like previous works. The King James Bible had a large committee of highly qualified translators, a mass of sources for translation superior to their predecessors, an English language that was at its peak, etc. (See the previous lesson from August 22nd on what made the KJV so special).

Hundreds of English Christians perished in the martyrs flame at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church as their Bibles were being translated from the God-honored line of manuscripts. Are we to abandon the Bibles of the martyrs to embrace the readings of their murderers?

9. If the KJV is the only inerrant English Bible, where is the inerrant Bible to be found in other languages? Isn’t God obligated to furnish such a translation in every other language of the world?

To the degree that a foreign language Bible follows the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts of the KJV, and to the degree that their individual translations match those found in the King James Version, to that degree they can be considered to be the true words of God for that particular foreign language. To the degree that they depart from both the texts and meanings found in the KJV, to that degree they are corrupt and inferior.

Consider the question of whether God is obligated to provide an inerrant Bible in other languages… We should not define God in our own image and require Him to live up to our standard of fairness. The promise of preservation was to all generations not to every language – a generation refers to a period of time, not any particular nation or ethnic group. Note Psalm 12:6-7 and Psalm 100:5 in the KJV.

What has been God’s proven practice? For the first 3,000 to 4,000 years of recorded history, there was only one nation on earth that had the true words of God… “He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation, and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD” (Psalm 147:19-20). The Hebrew scriptures were not translated during this time in Egyptian, Chaldean, Syrian, or any of the other nations that surrounded Israel. Since God has promised to preserve His words (not just the general, ballpark approximation) in the book of the LORD, this book must exist somewhere. All the evidence points to the King James Version as being that book for the last 400 years. English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. It was the KJV that was used by English and American missionaries to carry the gospel to the nations in the greatest missionary movement in history.

What is ironic is that this question is usually asked by those who believe the inerrant Bible can only be found in the “original autographs” or “original languages of Koine Greek and Hebrew”. The original autographs decayed into dust centuries ago. The critic claims this view shows favoritism by God to English speakers, and yet to say the word of God is inerrant only in the original languages is to say that God favored only those believers in the first few centuries that understood Koine Greek. Koine Greek is a dead language that stopped being used around 500 AD; if the New Testament is inspired only in the “original language” it is a dead book – Hebrew is only spoken by about 1% of the world’s population.

God only holds us accountable for the light He has been pleased to give us. To whom much is given, from him shall much be required. God has given to the English speaking people His perfect words in the King James Version. We will be held far more accountable for what we have done with this Book than any other people.

Having said that, I do not believe that every foreigner in non-English speaking countries needs to learn the English language and read the King James Version. Salvation through faith in the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is not only found in the KJV. Plus there are very good foreign language Bibles that non-English speakers would consider the word of God in their language, one of which is the Italian Diodati. For other foreign languages I cannot comment on. If there are several different versions in their own native language (German, Russian, Chinese, or whatever), then the foreign nationals should use the version that most closely follows the same Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie the King James Version.

10. It is rumored that King James was a homosexual

Anthony Weldon had been excluded from King James’ court and swore vengeance. In 1650 (25 years after the death of King James), Weldon wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people alive who knew it wasn’t true. It lay dormant for years until recently when it was picked up by those who hoped that vilifying King James would tarnish the Bible that bears his name. King James said sodomy was “a horrible crime” and advised his son that, “Marriage is the greatest earthly felicity… without the blessing of God you cannot look for a happy marriage.”

11. The KJV may be tolerated but it is still inferior to “the Greek.”

Which Greek text? The statement above makes it sound likes there is only one. There are over 20 different Greek texts. There are the various editions from the Greek editors of the Received Text – Erasmus (5 editions), Stephanus (4 editions), Beza (10 editions). There are the editions of the corrupt critical text – Nestle’s 23rd edition (used to translate the NASB), Nestle’s 26th edition used to translate the NIV), Westcott and Hort, etc.

Which edition of the Textus Receptus? All present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance but still there are a few differences… out of the 252 passages in which Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the KJV agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, the KJV agrees with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and the KJV agrees 80 times with Erasmus or the Complutensian or the Latin against Beza and Stephanus. These differences are minor, and pale into insignificance when compared with the approximately 6,000 differences — many of which are quite substantial — between the Critical Text (Alexandrian) and the Textus Receptus (Antiochan).

Since there are relatively minor variations between the copies of the Received Text, what is that final authority between those differences? Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide believers “into all truth” and He said “thy word is truth”. I believe that the true text was clarified by the Holy Spirit as comparisons between the Received Text and other sources like Old Latin, Gallic, Celtic, etc. were made by the translators in 1611. In the multitude of counselors there is safety and although the 47 gifted King James translators were not inspired I believe, as we discussed in lesson two, they were instruments used for the preservation of scripture into English through their incredible linguistic ability, mastery of the original languages of the Old and New Testaments, and their spiritual qualifications, etc.

12. So is the KJV itself literally inspired in such a way as to be even superior to its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts?

The KJV is not “more” God’s word than the original tongues of Hebrew and Greek – neither is it “less”. If it is not inspired, it’s not scripture: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”. The KJV is inspired scripture simply because it is the preservation of God’s words in English from Greek and Hebrew.

13. Without some knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, you cannot be an independent student, or reliable interpreter of the word of God

Hebrew and Greek lexicons should be used to amplify a word in the KJV, but never to “correct” it. If “Leviathan” in Hebrew can mean “coiled,” “twisted,” or “water monster,” then show the connection with Isaiah 27:1 and Revelation 12:1-9 in the English. If the word “church” comes from the Greek “ekklesia” meaning a called out assembly then make the appropriate application.

The student of the word of God should be aware that before he looks up the meaning of a Greek word in the back of a concordance and proudly proclaim with an authoritative voice that the word means such and such, that the authoritative meaning of any word in any language is how it is used in the specific context, not what is written in a dictionary. For example the word “gay” can mean exuberant, bright or a homosexual, depending upon the context of its use. The English word that the Holy Spirit led the translators of the KJV to use defines the proper definition of the Hebrew and Greek, e.g. the KJ translators chose the correct English words to express the original languages through God-given spiritual discernment, linguistic ability, etc. The Holy Bible is not to be made subject to the demands of linguistic scholarship.

The doctrine of the priesthood of the believer has been subtly replaced by the priesthood of the Hebrew and Greek professor who would have you believe that you cannot understand the word of God without their assistance. Their attitude is, “since the New Testament was not written in English but in Greek, only an accurate knowledge of Greek will reveal the true mind of God. The KJV is filled with mistranslations and should be corrected by ‘the Greek text’.” As opposed to this view, God has given us the words He wants us to have and has preserved them for us. What is obscure or seems to be a contradiction can be solved by prayer and study coming from a believing heart and a humble mind.

The confidence once held by many in the KJV was destroyed in Greek class or someone teaching them that sat through a Greek class – this has been the case since 1880. Their criticisms are often cloaked in words such as…

  • “The Greek text says…” – there is no single Greek text

  • “The original Greek says…” – no one living today has ever seen the “originals"

  • “A better translation is…” – which Greek text was used

  • “It is unfortunate the KJ translators translated it as…”

The “rules” critics establish for translating are often broken by themselves. There is great flexibility that Greek grammatical rules allow translators, no translator translates all the words the same way every time, gender does not always follow gender, articles are often added and not always translated, and what the critics call mistakes in translating by the KJ translators could not be proven in court.

Dr. Miles Smith who wrote the preface to the KJV commented that the AV1611 translators: did not tie themselves “to a uniformity of phrasing”, recognized that some words were “not of the same sense everywhere”, were “especially careful” not to “vary from the sense” of the underlying Greek and Hebrew word, and were constrained to “bring profit to the godly reader”.

Satan is not worried about a dead language (Koine Greek) that died out more than 1800 years ago – his attacks have been on one book for the last 400 years.

14. The discovery of many additional and very early manuscripts since 1611 provides urgent reasons for using modern versions of the Bible.

Manuscripts have been brought to light since 1611, but the great majority (90 to 95%) of these are in substantial agreement with the Received Text underlying the KJV. The readings of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were very much before the translators of 1611 as represented in the Latin Vulgate and Douay-Rheims.

Supposed “Errors” in the King James Version

There are no errors or contradictions in the King James Version. However, there are apparent contradictions in the Bible that God placed there on purpose. The faithful student of the word of God needs to study it to determine what the Bible actually is saying in these instances.

In Ezekiel 14:1-9, God tells Ezekiel that the religious leaders that came to him had already turned God off in their heart; they had put up so many barriers and idols in their heart that God refused to answer them (vs. 1-3). Verse 4 reads, “I the LORD will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols”. The application to the Bible critic is that when someone rejects the light that God gives them, He doesn’t give them anymore light on the subject. God says, “You want contradictions – I’ll give you some. I will answer you according to the multitude of your idols”. God has put a minefield in His word for the skeptic.

I say that the KJV is without “proven error” because I am not aware of errors having been proven! If the critic feels he has better understanding and spiritual insight at a given point than did the 47 AV translators, then he must set forth his evidence.

15. Apparent contradiction is found comparing 1 Kings 6:1 with Acts 13:16-22

God gives a specific date in 1 Kings 6:1 that 480 years after the exodus from Egypt that Solomon began to build the Temple in the second month of the fourth year of his reign – it is the beginning of the fourth year so Solomon has been on the throne for three years. Accounting for the time given in Acts 13:16 we have, 40 years in the wilderness (vs. 18) + 450 years of judges (vs. 19,20) + 40 years of Saul (vs. 21) + 40 years of David (2 Sam. 5:4) + 3 years of Solomon = 573 years. Paul in Acts chapter 13 lays out 573 years of Jewish history but the official account in 1 Kings chapter 6 very clearly says 480 years – a difference of 93 years.

When you examine Acts chapter 13 it would seem the discrepancy would be somewhere in the time of the judges (450 years). Examining the book of Judges will reveal the answer… the context of Judges is a series of sin cycles (they get into trouble because their sin leads them away from God, they are oppressed by other nations, they cry to God and He raises up a deliverer, the deliverer defeats the enemy, they live for God for a time then they forsake God and the cycle starts up again). Israel was enslaved 8 years to Mesopotamia (Judg. 3:8), 18 years to Moab (Judg. 3:14), 20 years to Canaan (Judg. 4:3), 7 years to Midian (Judg. 6:1), and 40 years to the Philistines (Judg. 13:1). We don’t include Judges 10:8 because that captivity deals with Israel “on the other side Jordan in the land of the Amorites”, not the Promised Land of Canaan (Num. 32:29-32). Summing the years of enslavement in the land of Canaan yields 8 + 18 + 20 + 7 + 40 = 93 years.

A great truth is revealed by this difference of 93 years – when God’s people (Israel) are out of fellowship with Him, and out of the Land under the control of foreign enemies, God’s clock stops. God “counts” time only when Israel is in control of the land that He gave them. Paul speaking in a Gentile controlled area (Acts chapter 13) gives them the chronological time that they would find in a secular history book. 1 Kings chapter 6 is the official record of the kings of ISRAEL and time is reckoned only when Israel is in the land and in control.

Application of this great truth gives light on a prophecy in Daniel chapter 9. Daniel 9:24-27 gives 490 years of history and all have been fulfilled except the last seven years. In Daniel 9:24-27, one week is equivalent to seven years in the prophecy so 70 weeks equals 490 years. After 69 “weeks” (483 years) Messiah was “cut off” (crucified), Jerusalem was destroyed (AD 70) and the Jews dispersed among the nations of the world – God’s people (Israel) have been out of fellowship with Him and out of their Land (God’s clock has not been ticking). In 1948, Israel became a nation again and since that time Jews have been returning to the Land – God’s clock is about to start again. The last week (7 years) will be when the Antichrist is in power (Dan. 9:27) – this is also known as Daniel’s Seventieth Week or the Tribulation.

17. Apparent contradiction is found when comparing 2 Chronicles 22:2 and 2 Kings 8:26

2 Chronicles chapter 22 says that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign and 2 Kings chapter 8 says he was 22 years old when he began to reign. Was Ahaziah 22 or 42 when he began to reign? Is this a contradiction in the Bible or is God trying to tell us something? By comparing scripture with scripture we learn that a man can be anointed as king but not actually take the throne until sometime later (see both Saul and David). There are many examples in Scripture of a man becoming king and co-reigning with their father.

Comparing 2 Chronicles chapter 22 and 2 Kings chapter 8 reveals that Ahaziah was anointed king when he was 22 years old but did not begin to reign until he was 42 years old.

There are peculiar and ominous circumstances surrounding this period in history… Ahaziah is the king of Judah but his mother is Athaliah the daughter of Omri, the king of Israel. Also, Athaliah had a brother named Ahaziah who had been king of Israel before he died (Ahaziah of the text had an uncle Ahaziah). This time period sees intermarriage and intermingling between the royal lines of Israel and Judah. There are not only two Ahaziah’s, there are two Jehoram’s (or Joram’s) and two Jehoash’s (or Joash’s) – always one each from each kingdom. There appears to be a plot and attempt to destroy the royal line of David.

The context of 2 Chronicles chapter 22 is found in 2 Chronicles 21:20 – Ahaziah’s “father” (Jehoram) is 40 years old when he dies (2 Chron. 21:20), Ahaziah is 42 years old when he begins to reign (2 Chron. 22:2). Was Ahaziah “two years older than his father?” No, Jehoram was his step-father. Ahaziah is said to be the “son of Jehoshaphat” (2 Chron. 22:9) and Jehoshaphat is said the be “the king of Israel” (2 Chron. 21:2) – this is a remarkable turn of events, for Jehoshaphat was king of JUDAH, not Israel. This is the only time that such a thing occurs in the entire Old Testament after the time of Solomon; with the tribes divided, no Jewish king from Rehoboam to Zedekiah is ever called “the king of Israel” unless he is the king over the ten northern tribes. Jehoshaphat’s title was king of Israel (2 Chron. 21:2) signifying the ominous alliance with Ahab the real king of Israel. In addition to being a “son” of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram we read that Ahaziah was also “the son in law” to the house of Ahab (2 Ki. 8:27).

The Ahaziah of our problem was not Jehoram’s literal son and obviously he was intended to be put on the southern throne of Judah (anointed at 22) many years before he finally got there (reigned at 42). His mother was Athaliah; she was Ahab’s sister. If Ahaziah was her son and Jehoshaphat was his father then when Jehoshaphat “joined affinity with Ahab” (2 Chron. 18:1), there was more involved than a military alliance. If both father (Jehoshaphat) and son (Jehoram) came in unto the same woman (Athaliah), the glaring omission of Ahaziah, Uzziah, and Azariah in Christ’s genealogy is perfectly explainable – this violates the law of Moses.

What about the statement that Ahaziah was Jehoram’s son? In the Bible, “son” often refers to the male-to-male relationship, e.g. Jesus Christ is called “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1) [the context determines if the word “son” is referring to a literal son]. A son-in-law can be a son (David was Saul’s son-in-law but Saul called him “son” in 2 Sam. 24). Ahaziah could not have been Jehoram’s literal son, for he was older than his “father” when his “father” died. Jehoram could have married Athaliah after she gave birth to Ahaziah; this would have made Ahaziah Jehoram’s stepson. Ahaziah was not Jehoram’s literal son; he is a stepson or a son-in-law at the most.

18. Rom 8:26 says, “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” Bible correctors tell us that the Spirit should be referred to as himself, not itself.

The ASV, RSV, NKJV, NIV and all other versions have “himself.” The Greek word for spirit is pneuma. Greek has three genders, which include a neuter, as well as masculine and feminine, Pneuma is a neuter noun. Since it is neuter, the only reflexive pronoun that could be used is itself. “Himself” is bad grammar.

Consider the inconsistency… Luke 2:16,17 says, “And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.” In this case ‘it’ refers back to ‘babe’ or brephos, which also is neuter. This by the way is a connection to Genesis 3:15, which see. Oddly, many of the new versions got ‘it’ right in this passage. Why did they hypercorrect the Romans passage and not this one?

19. “And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand” (Num. 25:9) with “and fell in one day three and twenty thousand” (1 Cor. 10:8)

23,000 “fell in one day” and 24,000 was the total number that died during a few days.

20. “So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver” (2 Sam. 24:24) with “So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight” (1 Chron. 21:25)

First David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen, and then he bought the whole “place” (farm).

21. “And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing A voice, but seeing no man” (Acts 9:7) with “And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not THE voice of him that spake to me” (Acts 22:9).

The companions of Paul heard a voice but didn’t understand the words of the voice (see Jn. 12:29 for an illustration). In other words, you can hear “a voice” without hearing “the voice” of the one speaking or understanding what the voice says.

22. “And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem” (2Ki 25:8). And “Now in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, which served the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem” (Jer 52:12).

This must be a copyists’ error, they say, because in one case it is the seventh day and in the other it is the tenth, and therefore both cannot be correct. But after a careful examination of these two passages we can find that Nebuzaradan came unto Jerusalem on the seventh day, and came into Jerusalem on the tenth day. It took him three days to enter into Jerusalem for some reason, which the Scriptures do not mention. Thus we see that these verses both are correct, and they are not the result of any copyists’ error, for God “shalt preserve them from this generation for ever”.

23. In these two passages from Ezra 2:1-12 and Nehemiah 7:5-17, we find certain differences in the numbers. We see that the children of Arah were 775 in one case and 652 in the other. Similarly, the children of Pahathmoab were 2812 in one place and 2818 in the other.

In Ezra 2:1 we read, “Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity”. This is God’s word, and the sentence which says “these are the children” is giving the numbers with all authority. Therefore ALL numbers in Ezra 2:1-12 and subsequent verses are the ACTUAL numbers.

Why do the numbers in Nehemiah differ? Let’s see what Nehemiah actually says. “I found a register of the genealogy of them which came up at the first, and found written therein, these are the children of the province, that went up out of the captivity.” It is very clear from this that Nehemiah is NOT telling us the ACTUAL numbers, but he is just giving us a faithful record of what was written in the register of genealogy. There are NO mistakes and NO errors in copying in his faithful record of that which was written in the register of genealogy, but THERE ARE mistakes in the very register of genealogy, which is a work of men, and it is not God-breathed.

The practice of corrupting Scripture, and subsequently God’s people, goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden. Although Adam and Eve did not have much of God’s word, what little they had Satan went after. His first words to Eve were, “Yea, hath God said?” Once Eve was sufficiently shaken by the question posed and began to doubt God’s word, Satan’s second step was to outright deny God’s word. Though God had warned, concerning the forbidden tree, “in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” Satan contradicted Him by saying, “Ye shall not surely die.” Satan’s questioning led Eve to SUBTRACT from God’s word (Gen. 3:2 – “freely” is subtracted when quoting 2:16), and it also led her to ADD to His word (Gen. 3:3 – “neither shall ye touch it”). Satan’s strategy has not changed. He begins by destroying faith in the word of God and once this is accomplished, replaces it with his own.

How different was the case of Jesus Christ (the last Adam, 1 Cor. 15:45), who was not in a garden paradise when He encountered the enemy but in the wilderness. We find Him declaring to Satan, who also tempted Him with food, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word of God.”

20 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page